Net Culture Expression: Dragger
Bill Palmer
geoff....@dartmouth.edu (Geoffrey V. Bronner) writes:
>
>In article <706q9c$6...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>(Bill Palmer) wrote:
>>
>>Recently I received email asking why I've been using the word
>>"dragger" in a way not specified in any dictionary, and further,
>>what I mean to convey when I use that word as an epithet.
>
>Gee, thanks. I was pretty sure you weren't referring to a fishing
trawler.
>
>Inventing new words
--is what writers have ALWAYS done. Thank you.
where they aren't needed
Weasel phrase alert! You say "dragger" is not needed,
but you never tell readers why.
is a good step for you, Bill.
>Don't let conventional language hold you back. If you make up enough
words
I've already added a couple of dozen words to the
general net vocabulary, so I HAVEN'T let conventional
language "hold me back", I'm delighted to report.
>you have real potential to be the founder of a new cult or at the very
>least being voted KOTM.
It's about time! I have been nominated by my
numerous spankards a great many times, but I can't
ever recall receiving the high honor of the
award itself.
>
>>Because of the volume of email I get, it remains impossible
>>to send personal responses. Even so, I DO agree that if I
>>use a common term in an unusual way in my articles, I
>>should be conscientious enough to explain my new meaning
>>of an old word to readers.
>
>Oh and don't forget to cc the folks at Webster's, I'm sure they are
holding
>their breath in anticipation. Do you have any other 'new' old words to
>share with us?
The SENSES of old words are continually expanded.
That's just part of the language process.
>
>>Essentially, "dragger"--in the new sense that I coined for
>>the word--describes a person who a) refuses to allow his
>>or her mind to expand intellectually to make use of the
>>promise of the net, and b) works actively against those
>>in the wired world who DO show awareness of those
>>immense possibilities and those who try in various ways
>>to develop that potential in themselves and in the
>>wired community at large.
>
>Now, Bill. I get the sneaking suspicion that in your mind _everyone_
with
>disagrees with you is a 'dragger.'
>
>But just 'cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get
you.
>
>
>>Mr. Jack Mingo, a regular poster in misc.writing, provides
>>one excellent example. Others share Jack's views, and I
>>don't exaggerate in saying that a dragger clique dominates
>>misc.writing and some other newsgroups I could mention.
>
>Ah... there's a clique of draggers out there holding you back. The
>conspiracy begins to unfold.
>
>Tell me, Bill, did you have a lot of friends in high school or is that
an
>'issue' for you? You seem to really dislike the idea of cliques that
you
>are not in.
What I have discovered about Usenet is that obnoxious
little groups tend to take over newsgroups and begin
treating the groups like their personal fiefdoms.
When somebody new doesn't conform to the "acceptable
newsgroup opinion", first he gets flack, and--
depending on the nature of the people in the clique-
sometimes the flack turns to sewer-level tricks
when clique members see that the non-conformer
adopts a battle stance and has no intention
of being prevented from expressing his views.
Also, try to grasp that I don't desire to BE in
any clique at all. I'm srictly an independent,
and have been since I came on the net.
I have said more than once, and my posting
history bears this out, "I don't run
with the herd: I FLAME the herd."
>
>>In short, such "subversive behavior" shoves Dragger
>>Jack's nose far out of joint.
>
>So, for you, Jack is sort of the leader of this conspiracy and you're
the
>rebel subversive striking back at 'the man' ?
Well, if you read Jack Mingo's Dejanews archive,
you will see that is basically how he operates.
Essentially he behaves as if misc.writing is
his personal property, though Jack will "generously"
welcome newbies who act sufficently humble and don't
defend opinions contrary to those Dragger
Jack holds dear.
>
>
>>How does Jack Mingo view someone like me, a self-
>>described "net-entity" sharing his writing with
>
>You mis-spelled "self-proclaimed" there...
>
>>To Jack, I have no right to claim to be a writer
>>at all, since I have never sold my work.
>
>Well, it could be argued that you're not a sucessful writer if no one
wants
>to buy your work.
I'm trying to SELL newsgroup readers my work.
Are you?
But I see you have a creative argument for manufacturing
>the idea that people 'buy' your work with time.
Thanks. I worked that one out a couple of years
back, and it is a recurring theme in some of my
articles. I firmly believe it.
>
>>Mr. Mingo habitually pokes fun at me for what he
>>views as my kooky approach to posting.
>
>Gee, why would anyone want to do that?
Well, take the time that I posted "Proud Amateurs
and Their Usenet Writing." Now, to any reasonable
person, that is an authentic, original essay
(which is certainly not to say it is a GREAT
essay, since that's for others to determine).
Anyway, it was highly coherent and followed the
traditional academic essay form. It also
challenged Mr. Mingo's opinions. Did Jack
try to refute one point I made? Not at all.
He dismissed the entire essay out of pocket
as the work of a "kook". That's intellectual
cowardice.
However, since one of my "hats" is "Entertainer
to the Kooks" don't think that YOUR insinuating
question breaks my heart.
>
>
>>On top of that, Mr. Mingo insists that there is no
>>such thing as a "net writer" and that I am sadly
>>deluded to call myself such, despite my huge
>>following on the net.
>
>That's good, make sure you believe in yourself. You can't possibly be
a
>FLAME GIANT if you are not wildly popular. If your clique is bigger
than
>Jack's you win, right?
I have no clique. I have fans and readers.
>
>Not even... you don't just have some lamer clique like Jack, you've
got a
>following!
That's correct. And since you are following
my article up, you are one infinitesimal part
of that "following." Glad to have you
inside the big tent.
>
>But that's not enough, Bill. To really attain stardom you need a
retinue
>with handlers and servants and all that stuff. THEN you've got
something.
Silly! Independent Americans like me don't need
servants around invading their privacy and
cluttering up their homes. And there's
nobody big enough to handle The Giant, anyway.
>
>
>>
>>Even so, the reader makes an investment of time and
>>energy. Don't imagine, either, that newsgroup posters
>>do not ever compete (whether they will admit it or
>>not) for "reader investment."
>
>That's true... but since you offer neither wit nor wisdom my trial
>subscription is not likely to be renewed. (Just to beat this writing
>analogy to a pulp once and for all.)
Glad to have you in the big tent.
>
>>With direct reference to my own case as a net writer,
>>the fact that more DIFFERENT people follow up my
>>articles than those of almost anyone on the net
>>means to me that I am one of the most popular
>>writers in the wired world.
>
>I'm glad it means that to you... to the rest of us it just means
you're an
>annoying dork who gets flamed a lot. But facts and statistics are
there to
>be used, Bill, and just 'cause I think all those follow-ups are the
online
>equivalent to hate mail doesn't mean you cannot see them as fan mail.
The bulk of the hate mail is from a few spankards
hiding under a welter of false names. Further,
it is impossible to be the World Champion of Flaming
without getting a continuous barrage of flames
fired in your direction. I have said that The
Flame Giant is the biggest target on the net,
and I was not exaggerating. Even so, in all
my archived follow-up, you find plenty of
positive replies, too--especially to
my serious, non-flame world entertainment
posts.
>
>This quality is especially important if you move on to founding a
cult,
>which I am beginning to think you are well qualified for.
I want noting to do with cults. You think I need
a bunch of loafers, no-lifes and general pests
hanging around kissing my boots? Hell no. I want
READERS and FANS and I've got readers and fans.
>
>>Though I work for free, net readers regularly place
>>in me a collectively heavy investment of their time
>>and mental energy.
>
>And yet you seem to consider everyone around you on the 'net to be a
moron
Not at all. I consider people who make stupid,
dishonest attacks on (as opposed to frank, reasoned
disagreement with) me to be morons, and those lousy
morons represent but a tiny percentage of net
users.
cannot possibly consider that investment to be of any real value. Or
>do you WANT a following of stupid sheeple?
>
>>YOU, dear reader, invest in me right now. Are you
>>satisfied that you have chosen a good investment?
>
>Nope... you're what the stock market calls "a loser". If I could get a
>refund I would.
Don't try to growl down MY stock, Mr. Bear!
>
>>Will you choose to invest in my next article?
>
>Never can tell... maybe if I have trouble falling asleep at nap time.
>
>>I can't afford to be smugly self-assured about it.
>
>This is the FIRST thing you have said that I agree with 100%, Bill!
>
>My finger is resting near the kill(file) switch... better come up with
>something fast.
>
>>That's MY reality.
>
>Excellent... and don't let the real world get in your way, Bill.
Reality is
>for wimps.
See you soon! You're reading THIS, ain't ya? Sure
you are.
>
>>The alt.genius.bill-palmer
>
>"Wylie Coyote... Super Genius!"
>
>-Geoff
>--
><http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>
ICEKNIFE
Bill Palmer sputtered in message <7082st$1...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
>It's about time! I have been nominated by my
>numerous spankards a great many times, but I can't
>ever recall receiving the high honor of the
>award itself.
and....
>The bulk of the hate mail is from a few spankards
>hiding under a welter of false names. Further,
>it is impossible to be the World Champion of Flaming
>without getting a continuous barrage of flames
>fired in your direction. I have said that The
>Flame Giant is the biggest target on the net,
>and I was not exaggerating. Even so, in all
>my archived follow-up, you find plenty of
>positive replies, too--especially to
>my serious, non-flame world entertainment
>posts.
In the same damn breath, Beepee? "Numerous" or "a few", how many Beepee?
Any proof of re-named posters, Beepee?
You lie about everything, don't you? Like the "fan" followup on Dejanews? We
can't seem to FIND any... except, of course, the ones you wrote yourself.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALT.SLACK, BILL???
Please stop your crossposted spam flood to alt.slack.
Thank you.
fukhed.
SOME PEOPLE REALLY ARE ONLY USEFUL AS PROTEIN SOURCES!
SEND SASE & 2$ TO: P.O. BOX 140306 DALLAS TX 75214
Rain King
that some of you may not know the particular background details of the
events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but
you can read up on them elsewhere. I think that he will unhesitatingly
utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal,
underground postmodernist tactics to present a false image to the world by
hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about his treatises
within a short period of time. I base this confident prediction on, among
other things, the fact that my motivations for writing this letter are not
of insult or hatred, but of the deepest love for mankind and the truest
concern for its future generations. His cronies are swinging pretty hard
on some slender evidence.
Palmer's "compromises" are a disgrace and an outrage. What if we
collectively just told Palmer's devotees, "Sure, go ahead and force us to
tailor our insinuations just to suit his inconsiderate whims. Have fun!"?
That would be worse than cruel; it would play on people's conscious and
unconscious belief structures.
One can examine this from another angle, and plainly see that we have to
start talking with one another honestly, in honest language. And, more
important, this, of itself, is prima facie evidence that Palmer's allies
should reevaluate their cherished assumptions about revisionism. Rest
assured, I find Palmer's pranks to be a perversion of the truth. I myself
know how most of you feel. Which brings me to my next criticism of Palmer.
The sole point of agreement between myself and nugatory crapulous schemers
is that the original purpose of terrorism was to fight with spiritual
weapons that are as heartless as they are spiteful. You might think this
is all pretty funny now, but I doubt I'll hear you laughing if, sooner
than you think, he is successfully able to eavesdrop on all sorts of
private conversations. I pause to note that I'd advise Palmer to stop
being so disreputable.
There are two reasons which induce me to submit his magic-bullet
explanations to a special examination: 1) Much of his behavior is not
rationally calculated to be of benefit to the misinformed oppressive
converts to expansionism whom he claims to be trying to help, and 2) his
tracts are not an isolated case of morally-questionable brazen
unilateralism, but a typical example of how mudslinging he can be. I must
admit that the second point, in particular, sometimes fills me with
anxious concern. I am appalled that I have cause to write this article. In
that context, one could say that he has made some imprecise statements and
statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and
reservations attached to them.
The only effective and responsible course of action is to take action --
an often frustrating prescription, to be sure. I do not wish to endorse
militarism, but rather to illustrate that some of Palmer's former deputies
say they were willing to help Palmer make McCarthyism socially acceptable
because he convinced them that they were part of a historic mission to
save the world from a dangerous global conspiracy -- a belief they now
reject as abusive. To be blunt, there are some dishonest wackos out there
who care nothing for you or your cherished contrivances. The great irony
is that Palmer's backers have demonstrated brutally, horribly, and with
great terror how they will hold annual private conferences in which grumpy
sybarites are invited to present their "research".
At first, you might think that Palmer's fixation with abhorrent
antagonists is crude. But on deeper inspection, you'll honestly conclude
that the law of self preservation dictates that I take steps against the
whole disingenuous brotherhood of incomprehensible clowns. When all is
said and done, I unmistakeably cannot believe that Palmer would consider
craven jerks as blockish rabble-rousers. Every time he tries, Palmer gets
increasingly successful in his attempts to spawn delusions of barbarism's
resplendence. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought,
but for imagination as well. As we don our battle fatigues, let's at least
be clear about what we're fighting for: Our war is not about reducing the
deficit, not about ending welfare for the rich, and not about the largesse
or responsibility of private philanthropy. All we want is for his slaves
not to reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and,
quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually-transmitted
diseases.
This is particularly interesting when you consider that I am merely
pointing out what I have observed. Though many people agree that we must
work together against communism, voyeurism, absolutism, etc., it would be
a crying shame to let lewd vagabonds invade every private corner and force
every thought into a boisterous mold.
When we tease apart the associations necessary to Palmer's cocky protests,
we see that I should state this explicitly. The truth hurts, doesn't it,
Palmer? Although debauched roommates are relatively small in number
compared to the general population, they are rapidly increasing in size
and fervor.
I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that
with his orations, simple credos like "check your sources" and "argue the
other side of the question" have gone out the window. Something that I
have heard repeated several times from various sources -- a sort of "tag
line" for Palmer -- is, "We should go out and stigmatize any and all
attempts to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by
Palmer's objectives might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational.
And when we're done with that, we'll all fortify a social correctness that
restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries." This is
not a direct quote, nor have I heard it from Palmer's lips directly, but
several sources have paraphrased the content to me in near-enough ways
that I feel fairly confident it actually was said. And to be honest, I
have no trouble believing it. The bottom line is that Bill Palmer needs
some serious professional help.
--
_________________
rev...@radix.net
eating too much is barbaric
Ron's Inspector's Inspector
>>Inventing new words
>
>--is what writers have ALWAYS done. Thank you.
In that case, since no one word adequately describes you, Bill, and
since running together phrases like "big idiot" and "shrill twerp"
occasionally gets tiring, I hereby coin the word "Palmjob" and apply it to
you.
Palmjob (n) 1. An incredibly stupid individual. As in: "If he'd survived
eating that hand grenade, we couldd call him a Palmjob." 2. A source of
abrasive noise that appeals to no segment of the human population. As in:
"That thumping loud music from the car next to us isn't a Palmjob because
the driver seems happy." 3. A delusion which is plainly transparent to
others. As in: "Bob should have known that oasis was just a Palmjob when he
came up with the mouthful of sand."